Get over it, buttercup. This isn't some grand, world-changing gesture you're making. You're pissy because two chains won't sell you a gun until your next birthday. Boo-farking-hoo. There are probably sixty independent gun shops within shouting distance. Go to one of them. They will happily wipe your tears with the gentle caress of an AR-15.

I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

Do businesses have the right to implement their own policies on this matter outside of the law? Let's do devil's advocate for a second:

In the US the drinking age is 21. Now, imagine, as a fresh faced 22 year old, going to a bar and being told that they don't serve alcohol to anyone under 25. Does the bar have the right to impose that age restriction, outside of any law or regulation?

I'm thinking they don't, or shouldn't. If there is a legal age restriction for purchasing a firearm (18, for example), then businesses should not have the right to arbitrarily impose more stringent limitations. That would need to be imposed through legislation.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

Without explicitly defined anti age discrimination laws in place, the lawsuit will probably fail quickly.

Even with them, the odds of success are low.

Constitutional protections prohibit government action. They do not preempt policies of private businesses.

Ambivalence:In the US the drinking age is 21. Now, imagine, as a fresh faced 22 year old, going to a bar and being told that they don't serve alcohol to anyone under 25. Does the bar have the right to impose that age restriction, outside of any law or regulation?

Important distinction: consumption of alcohol is not a civil right. That being said, I've definitely seen bars who don't allow in patrons under 25.

I looked up Oregon anti-discrimination law and the state itself maintains: "It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)." I thought initially that it might just be in employment but no.

factoryconnection:Important distinction: consumption of alcohol is not a civil right. That being said, I've definitely seen bars who don't allow in patrons under 25.

That distinction doesn't matter if it's an ageism suit. They are alleging unjust discriminatory practices against younger individuals who are legally allowed to purchase firearms...if this somehow doesn't get thrown out, then one could reasonably expect future action against such bars as well.

factoryconnection:I looked up Oregon anti-discrimination law and the state itself maintains: "It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)." I thought initially that it might just be in employment but no.

Does that mean that 18-year-olds can legally walk into a bar and have a seat?

Psychopusher:factoryconnection: I looked up Oregon anti-discrimination law and the state itself maintains: "It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)." I thought initially that it might just be in employment but no.

Does that mean that 18-year-olds can legally walk into a bar and have a seat?

guestguy:That distinction doesn't matter if it's an ageism suit. They are alleging unjust discriminatory practices against younger individuals who are legally allowed to purchase firearms...if this somehow doesn't get thrown out, then one could reasonably expect future action against such bars as well.

If I'm wrong and there isn't even basis, then so be it. I'm not the one filing the suit, and honestly a 21+ prohibition on some or all firearms purchases might be a good idea. This may act as a test case for states considering laws bumping up the purchase age, too.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

Strictly on the age issue, it's not necessarily a random abridgement. It's arbitrary, but so is any age limit. There's a current federal law that set the age limit for handguns from a licensed dealer at 21. I'd argue that equalizing the rifle / handgun age is reasonable.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

Then how did they come up with the 18 year old age limit in the first place?

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

This isn't the evil gummint coming to TAKE YER GUNZ. It's a store refusing to sell based on something other than a protected category. Age other 40+ is not, to the best of my recollection, protected.

Ambivalence:I posted this in the redlit thread but I think it's worth discussing.

Do businesses have the right to implement their own policies on this matter outside of the law? Let's do devil's advocate for a second:

In the US the drinking age is 21. Now, imagine, as a fresh faced 22 year old, going to a bar and being told that they don't serve alcohol to anyone under 25. Does the bar have the right to impose that age restriction, outside of any law or regulation?

I'm thinking they don't, or shouldn't. If there is a legal age restriction for purchasing a firearm (18, for example), then businesses should not have the right to arbitrarily impose more stringent limitations. That would need to be imposed through legislation.

When i worked retail, we wouldn't sell compressed air to anyone under 18.

There was no law preventing it, and I'm sure there are many other examples.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

I think the crux of the matter is whether and how low age is a protected class. Because that could have some big implications on other laws...say, those on alcohol.

factoryconnection:Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

Dick's Sporting Goods doesn't hold a monopoly on firearms sales and isn't a branch of government, their internal policy has nothing to do with his constitutional rights.

Dimensio:Constitutional protections prohibit government action. They do not preempt policies of private businesses.

Well, we've had a lot of talk about bakers who refuse service to same-gendered couples and that seems to be growing legs, legally. I'm wondering how this would be any different. Serious question and not snark.

factoryconnection:Ambivalence: In the US the drinking age is 21. Now, imagine, as a fresh faced 22 year old, going to a bar and being told that they don't serve alcohol to anyone under 25. Does the bar have the right to impose that age restriction, outside of any law or regulation?

Important distinction: consumption of alcohol is not a civil right. That being said, I've definitely seen bars who don't allow in patrons under 25.

Dimensio: Without explicitly defined anti age discrimination laws in place, the lawsuit will probably fail quickly.

I looked up Oregon anti-discrimination law and the state itself maintains: "It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)." I thought initially that it might just be in employment but no.

There have been lawsuits against bars that do ladies' nights alleging that they were discriminating on the basis of sex by not offering the same deal to men. IIRC, those lawsuits were tossed out.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

Who do you think is really behind this. Either the NRA or James O'Keefe or maybe both are probably behind this, with my money being that it is James O'Keefe's group, being financed by the NRA. If it is not James O'Keefe, then I would put my money on it being a protege of his, with secret funding from the NRA.

I think the argument Dick's will make is that the federal; and state laws are a minimum standard and they as a business can choose to be stricter than that as company policy, just as they can choose not to serve a customer who is not wearing shoes and a shirt.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

anuran:factoryconnection: I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

So I'll be interested in how this turns out, especially considering that the NRA will likely fund his legal team all the way to SCOTUS if necessary.

This isn't the evil gummint coming to TAKE YER GUNZ. It's a store refusing to sell based on something other than a protected category. Age other 40+ is not, to the best of my recollection, protected.

You could argue that refusing to serve African Americans at the Woolworth's diner wasn't the evil gummint taking away civil rights. According to the Oregon statute cited above, age is a protected category and there's no particular age specified.

I hope two things happen: I hope this lawsuit drags out well past his 21st birthday and I hope they find in favour of the retailers with some sort of "right to refuse service to whoever they want" thing. Though that probably won't fly because that's the purpose of his lawsuit, no discrimination for reasons like age, sex, gender, race thing.

"Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20- year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals," the gun rights organization said.

I love the clearly bullshiat story they are trying to sell in their lawsuit... kid was ONLY trying to by a Ruger 10/22...while still potentially deadly...sounds a lot more innocent that buying some sort of AK variant.(also...was the first type of rifle I bought when I turned 18 back in 1989...but it was between the 10/22 and a Chinese SKS...I opted for the 10/22 because ammo was WAY WAY cheaper)also love how the kid was "totally unaware" of the 21 and up policy shift at Dicks and WalMart but those were the ONLY stores he went to...its almost like he WAS totally aware of the age limit change at those chains and went there deliberately to set up this bullshiat lawsuit.

it's a Ruger 10/22... you can get one at pretty much any other place on Earth that sells guns.

So, I'm too lazy to look it up, but isn't the age to purchase 'most' handguns 21? I have no problem making them match, of course I think the drinking age, voting age, and ability to buy tobacco products age all should match too.

But in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure there are all too many stores that sell guns that are not Wal Mart or DSG, so go there. Vote with your wallet, as we're told.

tl;dr

Get over yerself snowflake, and go buy what you want at a place that will sell them to you. Like the gays that wanted pizza or a cake were told.

Mugato:factoryconnection: I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

Then how did they come up with the 18 year old age limit in the first place?

I'd guess because that's around the age of adulthood and military/militia recruitment as well as consent in many parts. They raised the age for buying pistols to 21 back in the 60's, in order to reduce violence.It didn't work.

/If a gay couple as sue for a wedding cake then a 20 year old can sue for a rifle./Discrimination is discrimination.

On a side note, the Dick's by us in in the same shopping center as a BJ's. Totes a coincidence that their names ended up adjacent to each other on the giant sign visible from the highway. My kids thought it was hilarious every time we drove by when they were middle school age.

factoryconnection:I did see people predict that age-discrimination lawsuits would follow the 21+ policies on gun sales. Like it or not, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects individual gun ownership as a civil right, and random abridgement of rights based on characteristics of a protected class seems to deny that right.

... abridgement by the government. I can refuse to sell you a gun because I don't like your face*.

No, the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant for this particular issue. Instead, it's Oregon's civil rights act that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations:2015 ORS 659A.403 - Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

The age exemptions noted are for alcohol, marijuana, and offering of senior citizens' discounts. Given that those stores are public accommodations, and given that they're refusing to sell him a product purely because of his age, they would seem to be in clear violation of the law.

Bedstead Polisher:I hope two things happen: I hope this lawsuit drags out well past his 21st birthday and I hope they find in favour of the retailers with some sort of "right to refuse service to whoever they want" thing. Though that probably won't fly because that's the purpose of his lawsuit, no discrimination for reasons like age, sex, gender, race thing.

"Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20- year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals," the gun rights organization said.

Gleeman:On a side note, the Dick's by us in in the same shopping center as a BJ's. Totes a coincidence that their names ended up adjacent to each other on the giant sign visible from the highway. My kids thought it was hilarious every time we drove by when they were middle school age.

Hell, I'd find that hilarious NOW if I drove by it, and I'll never see the bright side of 50 again!

Any Pie Left:I think the argument Dick's will make is that the federal; and state laws are a minimum standard and they as a business can choose to be stricter than that as company policy, just as they can choose not to serve a customer who is not wearing shoes and a shirt.

Can they have a company policy where they choose not to serve customers who are black?

I don't think that would be in play if they'd be willing to sell him other products.

IlGreven:I think the crux of the matter is whether and how low age is a protected class. Because that could have some big implications on other laws...say, those on alcohol.

Public accommodations law, as I cited above, extends to 18 years of age. Alcohol sales law extends to 21, and no doubt with the caveats that further allow "discrimination" against the obviously impaired for instance.

winedrinkingman:Who do you think is really behind this. Either the NRA or James O'Keefe or maybe both are probably behind this, with my money being that it is James O'Keefe's group, being financed by the NRA. If it is not James O'Keefe, then I would put my money on it being a protege of his, with secret funding from the NRA.

If not yet then certainly soon enough. Either seems plausible, the NRA would be reasonable since gun civil rights are their whole purported raison d'etre.

Mugato:Good luck suing farking Wal*Mart. By the time he loses his suit it'll be well past his 21st birthday. Hope for his sake there'll be enough of his trust fund after legal fees left to buy his toy.

Yeah he isn't going to be rolling solo if this makes it through pretrial motions without getting thrown out, though.